Even Novel Laureates can be blinded by their ideology. Krugman won a Nobel, but on a regular basis he posts stuff on his NYT blog that is blatantly false, commenters point it out, and he runs from the subject and refuses to either substantiate or rescind his statements.

(04-12-2013 01:25 PM)frankksj Wrote: Krugman won a Nobel, but on a regular basis he posts stuff on his NYT blog that is blatantly false, commenters point it out, and he runs from the subject and refuses to either substantiate or rescind his statements.

Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity, argues with a Nobel Laureate in Economics over economics, might as well go for the quadfecta and argue with a computer scientist over computational complexity. Come on coder, bring it bitch.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus

Saying that our species has the quality of selfishness doesn't mean we aren't capable of compassion.

Inequity is not the problem, it is the gap. Other westernized nations show that when the gap is lower the social problems are smaller because the more stable the individual is the less social problems that society has.

Selfishness is one aspect of our species, but not the only one.

I completely agree. So the question becomes how do we set up our society as one that will reflect our compassion rather than our primal instinct of greed? Narrowing that gap is definitely the right way to go, but who gets to decide on the best way of getting there?

I don't think we've evolved enough to be able to set up a compassionate, empathetic system of society that will benefit everyone without bias. It's just not in our nature yet.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

(04-12-2013 01:51 PM)evenheathen Wrote: I don't think we've evolved enough to be able to set up a compassionate, empathetic system of society that will benefit everyone without bias. It's just not in our nature yet.

Speak for yourself odd heathen, cause Girly's been there for decades.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus

(04-12-2013 01:51 PM)evenheathen Wrote: I don't think we've evolved enough to be able to set up a compassionate, empathetic system of society that will benefit everyone without bias. It's just not in our nature yet.

Speak for yourself odd heathen, cause Girly's been there for decades.

Of course, I meant the "proverbial we".

I'm takin' notes, Girly.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

(04-12-2013 12:53 PM)Brian37 Wrote: Inequity is not the problem, it is the gap. Other westernized nations show that when the gap is lower the social problems are smaller because the more stable the individual is the less social problems that society has.

Q: Should we focus on lowering inequality, or raising the state of the poor?

#1: Imagine a solution that reduces inequality by dis-proportionally taking from the rich, but it lowers the overall/average wealth/income.

#2: Imagine a solution that raises everybody's standards, wealthy and poor, so that the poor are better off than under #1, BUT, it lets the rich get much, much better off and therefore inequality is higher.

Given those 2 choices, which you prefer? Greater equality, but less wealth? Or greater inequality, but more wealth?

Serious question, and it's very relevant because it's hard to say if you're 'doing it right' if we don't know what you're trying to do.